Alachua County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Alachua County Growth Management Department
111 S.W. 1st Street, Room 6
Gainesville, FL 32601
Meeting Minutes
Members present: Juanita Biles; Michael Conroy; Don Davis; Tim Flanagan; Gail Monahan; Darlene Pifalo; Robert Stroh; Shaun Wasdo.
Others present: Jeff Hays, Senior Transportation Planner with Alachua County Growth Management; Phil Dunnington, Building Official with Alachua County Growth Management; Tom Webster, Housing Programs Manager; Abu Karim, Assistant Housing Programs Manager; Mark Ludlow, services provider to the committee.
The meeting began at 5:05 P.M.
Old business & Chair’s Comments
The minutes of the Committee’s meeting on August 27, 2008 were approved. Abu Karim briefly informed the committee of the outcome of the second CDBG public hearing on September 9, 2008; the Board of County Commissioners approved the CDBG application and directed staff to submit it by the September 29, 2008 deadline. There were no Chair’s comments.
Impact fees
Jeff Hays introduced the committee to impact fees and answered members’ questions on how impact fees are utilized. Mr. Hays noted that impact fees are fees placed on new residential construction, new non-residential construction, and rehabilitation in unincorporated Alachua County; impact fees are levied for transportation, parks and recreation, and fire protection. Of the three, the transportation impact fee has the highest rate and is primarily determined by the approximate cost of keeping infrastructure levels of service current. Rates for specific land uses are based on the estimated number of vehicle trips generated by each use, as well as right-of-way, design, and construction costs. Mr. Hays remarked that impact fees may only be used for new capital projects; for roads, such a project has to add capacity and may not be utilized for repair of existing roads, with the exception of improving intersections. Gas taxes, on the other hand, are used to repair existing roads. Several smaller projects funded by impact fee collections are underway.
Mr. Hays commented that impact fees are one means for financing state-mandated concurrency, which is the requirement to keep levels of service up to date. Members asked if there are lists of projects on which to expend impact fee collections; a list of projects will be discussed with the Board of County Commissioners the week of September 15, 2008. Members also asked approximately how much in transportation impact fees the County has collected and whether the account is interest-bearing; Mr. Hays said he would find out and send the information to Mark Ludlow, who will send it to members.
Tom Webster then discussed the impact fee relief program, which is administered by Housing Programs. The program is financed with ad valorem tax dollars and is available to households that will reside in unincorporated areas of the County and that earn less that 100% of Area Median Income. Unlike SHIP assistance, the impact fee relief program may be used for mobile homes built after 1976; the majority of households assisted with the program have resided in such mobile homes. The suggestion was made to advertise the impact fee relief program to builders, many of whom are not aware of the program. Several members noted the dilemma with mobile homes: although they are oftentimes affordable to lower-income households, they are not a good long-term solution for housing. The discussion also turned to the possible temporary suspension of impact fees; such a suspension would have to be across the board, instead of only for affordable housing. It was suggested that the committee recommend the $25,000 funding for the impact fee relief program be increased to $100,000 if the program becomes heavily utilized.
Permitting
Phil Dunnington discussed the County’s building inspection and permitting process.
Mr. Dunnington noted the decrease in building activity and the corresponding decrease in revenue, which affects building inspections as an enterprise-funded office. Mr. Dunnington remarked that there may be increases in particular permit fees; current fees are relatively inexpensive and, in some cases, are not covering inspection costs. Because of the downturn in the economy and housing market, the building division is taking less than two weeks to approve building permits. The time required to approve building permits is much less when builders are constructing a house for which model plans have already been approved. Mr. Dunnington noted that missing documents are the most common problem in the permit approval process; missing documents delay the permitting process. Several members commented that in their dealings with County building inspectors and the Building Division, they have found personnel to be pleasant and helpful. As the conversation turned to affordable housing incentives, Mr. Ludlow circulated a draft of Housing Programs’ “Incentives for Building Affordable Housing” brochure; several members requested a copy of the draft brochure and Mr. Ludlow said he would send it to members via e-mail.
Alachua County Housing Programs
Tom Webster presented the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program and discussed the following in particular:
- Program and expenditure requirements;
- Eligibility guidelines;
- Current SHIP strategies (for the 2006-2008 Local Housing Assistance Plan);
- SHIP strategies for the 2009-2011 Local Housing Assistance Plan;
- SHIP issues identified by the committee; and
- Incentives already included in the Local Housing Assistance Plan.
Expenditure requirements stipulating percentages of program funds to be spent for very low- and low-income households are determined by legislation; funding is for construction and homeownership, but not for ongoing rental subsidies. In discussing the eligibility guidelines, Mr. Webster summarized the principle of an eligible household (income criteria) in an eligible housing unit (site built homes in Alachua County). During the conversation concerning current SHIP strategies, members asked several questions about the Foreclosure Invention program. Mr. Webster noted that the existing foreclosure intervention program is accessible to households that have participated in the SHIP program; the committee has the option of exploring possibilities for expanding the intervention program.
While discussing SHIP issues identified by the committee, Mr. Webster brought to member’s attention the fact that effective January 2009, Alachua County SHIP funds may be used within the City limits of Gainesville. Members discussed the pros and cons of the County Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) requirement that applicants for SHIP assistance provide 2% towards a home’s purchase price. Mr. Webster ended his presentation with a summary of affordable housing incentives described in the LHAP.
New Business
Mr. Ludlow told members he and the City of Gainesville’s AHAC staff liaison would develop a draft agenda for the joint meeting to be held September 23, 2008 and send it to members via e-mail.
The meeting ended at 7:40 P.M.